The Personality of Interviewers
Even the most structured competency-based interviews are aimed at collecting data about the personality of interviewees. There are countless books for interviewing professionals on what traits to look for; what issues to probe and how to interpret the answers to those tricky, perspicacious questions.
But there is often no explicit recognition that the personality of the interviewer may play a very significant role in the whole interview process. So do different types/personalities make different decisions on the same people given the same criteria?
Presumably they know what they are looking for and have agreed specific criteria in terms of a candidate’s abilities, attitudes, experiences, personality and values. So why is there ever any disagreement? Were the criteria not clear? Did the questions not elicit data to satisfy the criteria? Often both of these are true.
But there remains one other factor – differences in the personalities of the interviewers which have to be factored into this equation.
Extraverts usually enjoy interviewing. They are ‘people people’; sociable; eager to be amused and entertained and entertaining. Extraverts probably talk too much and listen too little. They may not do their preparation as thoroughly as they should. They may be impatient and inattentive in long interviews. And of course they are attracted to vivacious (if vacuous) candidates.
Introverts make very different, and often diffident, interviewers. They pause more, seeming hesitant, when they are processing information. They can find the whole process tiring and intimidating and feel more for those candidates who are similar to themselves. They usually take the data gathering more seriously and see the whole interview less as a social occasion than a semi-scientific exercise Certainly the introverted candidate probably gets a “better deal” (more favourable hearing) from the introverted interviewer. The trouble is that introverts eschew while extraverts volunteer for interviewing assignments.
And what of the ‘sensitive’ (neurotic) interviewer? They are the fragile flowers of the world often hyper-sensitive to real and imaginary threats. They are stress-prone and don’t like people in general, whom they see as threatening. They can be bitchy and critical; wary and judgmental.
Neurotic interviewers can easily feel threatened by the potential “mover and shaker”. They worry about things: the future, the present; their reputation, their security; their ability, their respectworthiness, etc. They listen carefully to the candidates’ answers to questions about work-life balance, diversity, counselling and other issues. If they don’t like what they hear in response to salient as well as less relevant questions, their instinct is to push the rejection button.
Stable interviewers, like stable employees, are better news. They are less irritable and moody and better able to weigh the information. They worry less about what might go wrong and cope with all the little dramas at interviews well. They tend to be calm, focused and rational. Their behaviour in the interview is more predictable.
What of the personality trait ‘agreeableness’. Agreeable interviewers are warm, empathic and trusting. They are for the most part likeable. They understand that interviews can be stressful. They are concerned about making the candidate comfortable, relaxed and able to be their real selves. They are slow-to-chide and swift-to-bless and believe they get the best out of others by giving them a chance.
Less agreeable and likeable interviewers believe you understand people best by “putting them on the spot”. They treat the interview as a “Paxman-inspired” political interview. They cross-examine individuals, often pushing them to give details of success and failure which their CV overlooks. They are hard to please: cynical, tough, world-weary and they care little for interviewee comfort.
Conscientious interviewers are not only conscientious about how they approach the task of interviewing, but also what they are looking for. Hard work is a virtue. Some are even prepared to “trade off” ability for the work ethic: preferring the loyal plodder to the capricious wunderkind. Conscientious interviewers are concerned that the applicant follows orders, obeys rules, and has a sense of duty.
Less conscientious interviewers want to have fun. They tend to be less achievement-orientated, less careful and with a much weaker work ethic. All that “postponement of gratification” stuff never worked with them. They prefer what the Freudians call “the pleasure principle”. They seek out playmates more than solid and reliable colleagues.
The ambition and achievement needs of interviewers are also relevant. Paradoxically, both the low and high ambitious interviewer may be intimidated by the obviously ambitious candidate. Those with low ambitions can feel intimidated by newly minted MBAs who want to be on the board at 30 and retired at 40. The highly ambitious see a potential threat.
What of the abilities of the interviewer? How are bright, educated interviewers different from their less talented peers? Another paradox: the clever prefer discriminating questions, the dim prefer “clever” questions. Brighter people tend to have a bigger vocabulary and to think fast. They ask good questions which sort the wheat from the chaff.
The less bright and less educated interviewers might rehearse “killer” questions that make them appear intelligent, even if they cannot process the answers. They can be intimidated in group interviews and behave badly. They often have “crackpot” theories, refreshingly evidence-free about desirable characteristics in candidates…all sport-people are team players, only-children are selfish,
your shoes belie your honesty or work-ethic.
The interview is a social process. It can be a sophisticated intellectual theatrical show; a hall of mirrors; a game of bluff and counter-bluff. There is no doubt that there is a lot of ‘gut feeling’ going on in both parties, despite all their training. This is why they are both unreliable (interviewee differ in their judgments) and invalid (interview-based ratings later do not correlate with work outcomes)
So the moral of the story? First, acknowledge that the interviewers’ make-up (ability and personality) do inevitably play a part in the whole process and more importantly the judgements. Second, try to work out how specific interviewers react to particular candidates. Third, use multiple interviewers but particularly those with the ability and personality profiles found among those actually doing the job in question. Fourth, where possible, encourage these insights in interviewers: that is make them reflect on how their personality effects their perceptions choices and ratings. Fifth, choose (yes and train) interviewers who are bright, stable and conscientious.
